46 replies to this topic

[CodeCat]

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

I think animals don't have free will because they cannot knowingly commit suicide like humans can.

They can.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

Morality is objective.

No.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

What is the 'community'?

Everyone around us.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

A truly selfish person would leave office because they do not to rely on other people's efforts to get what they want to get done done. A selfless person, however, would need to be in office because they can't do things on their own accord and thus have to extort the means out of other people.

They don't need to extort.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

You never, ever see an animal knowingly do something detrimental to it's survival, whereas in humans it occurs all of the time.

Animals do stupid stuff plenty of times, like climb trees they can't get out of, get stuck in drainpipes, climb up electricity poles, sit on railway tracks, etc.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

1: It is only ad hominem in world where no objective, reason centric morality exists.

Hence, it is an ad hominem attack.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

2: Whether you choose to accept it or not, my morality applies to everybody.

You are deluded, is all I can say. However, whether you choose to accept it or not, this point of view is very dangerous in this forum as it comes close to saying 'I will not discuss', hence making your presence here purposeless.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

You're still in poverty either way.

You missed the point.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

And yet you seek to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Yes, but that does not imply equality by virtue of there not being a defined point at which one stops this process. Only when one continues until everything is 100% equalised, then everyone has the same amount. But that is not necessarily the case here.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

So you are admitting that your ideals are fundamentally impossible?

Read the post again. My ideals do not entail a goal, therefore any goal is irrelevant.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

How much damage do I do to you if I invent something brilliant and make a billion dollars?

None, as long as everyone can share in its profit.

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:47, said:

Where does the identity of the 'all' come from?

The dictionary.

[Dauth]

OK this thread is getting a little repetitive so under moderator instruction lets drop those aspects and bring in a newer aspect of a debate. If people are not willing to work with me on this part of the thread they are more than welcome not to post.

Under the assumption that you want to move towards a communist state (we will take any single European state as an example) how would it be achieved and what methods would be employed? How would you prevent breach of human rights and would you stay in the EEC/EU?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Dauth, on 8 Dec 2008, 1:49, said:

Under the assumption that you want to move towards a communist state (we will take any single European state as an example) how would it be achieved and what methods would be employed? How would you prevent breach of human rights and would you stay in the EEC/EU?

It can't be done.

[The Wandering Jew]

I have been reading the previous posts. So, I'd like to add something that might help.

Communism (like capitalism, mercantilism or any economic models known to God and man) as a system is beneficial. However, Vladimir Lenin might had other things in mind...

When communism reached the Chinese shores, people there interpreted in an entirely different manner. Their culture exhibited respect to a sole ruler (i.e. emperor), thus, the result was Mao Tse Tung's "cult of personality" that caused a rift between Russian communism and Chinese communism.

The point is, any system that is adapted to any government is prone to agendas (i.e. prone to graft, corruption, etc.) and when that agenda has succesfully attained, the system becomes a part of that agenda-filled government.

[Dauth]

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 3:33, said:

Dauth, on 8 Dec 2008, 1:49, said:

Under the assumption that you want to move towards a communist state (we will take any single European state as an example) how would it be achieved and what methods would be employed? How would you prevent breach of human rights and would you stay in the EEC/EU?

It can't be done.

I suggest you expand on this point in the next 24 hours or you will be removed from the PA.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Dauth, on 8 Dec 2008, 11:09, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 8 Dec 2008, 3:33, said:

Dauth, on 8 Dec 2008, 1:49, said:

Under the assumption that you want to move towards a communist state (we will take any single European state as an example) how would it be achieved and what methods would be employed? How would you prevent breach of human rights and would you stay in the EEC/EU?

It can't be done.

I suggest you expand on this point in the next 24 hours or you will be removed from the PA.

The sheer amount of taxation and coercion required would probably constitute a breach of human rights.

EDIT: More importantly, I don't think the EU would allow communist nations to stay in.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 08 December 2008 - 11:17.

[Mr. Mylo]

A system where everybody is equal has to be controlled otherwise there will be people who betray the system. To archieve this you have to control the whole state which makes the state a surveillance society. And who should be the one who is allowed to control others? The one who gains this might can't be called "equal".

The system of communism is a system predicted to fail and a paradox itself imho.

Mr. Mylo

[CodeCat]

It would not need to be controlled more than with current methods that combat crime. And even in societies that do not have a proper 'police force', there is still the means to reprimand others for their behaviour.

[Mr. Mylo]

CodeCat, on 8 Dec 2008, 14:09, said:

It would not need to be controlled more than with current methods that combat crime. And even in societies that do not have a proper 'police force', there is still the means to reprimand others for their behaviour.

that would mean that everybody is allowed to reprimand everybody who made something wrong. That sounds like anarchy. Every state needs a police force someone who is allowed to judge others. These person wouldn't be equal

[CodeCat]

How would they not be equal to everyone else? Their job is just a job like any other.

[Dauth]

CodeCat, on 8 Dec 2008, 14:33, said:

How would they not be equal to everyone else? Their job is just a job like any other.

The point is the police force have powers of arrest, they can remove another's freedom and that breaks equality. It is a conceptual weakness of the communist ideal.

[CodeCat]

If you have rules, they'll need to be enforced. That's a weakness of any system based on rules, not just communism. Current western society suffers from it all the same. So it doesn't make sense to point it out as a weakness inherent in communism specifically.

[Dauth]

No western society subscribes to the ideal of everyone being equal, superficially they say it, but everyone recognises a Doctor is worth more than a Fashion Designer and a Plumber is required to maintain the water supply.

There was an interesting article on Top Gear yesterday, did the Communists make any good cars? The result was no, and even removing their bias I can't think of a Communist car I'd have paid for, the Japanese ones were more reliable and the same price. How much further does it go? With the lack of competition do we slow advancement?

[CodeCat]

There isn't necessarily no competition in a communist society. At least not the way I would like to see it. The difference is mostly between willingness vs unwillingness. Someone who is willing to work hard gets more, while someone who isn't gets less. Therefore there is still an advantage to working hard.

[Mr. Mylo]

CodeCat, on 8 Dec 2008, 15:57, said:

There isn't necessarily no competition in a communist society. At least not the way I would like to see it. The difference is mostly between willingness vs unwillingness. Someone who is willing to work hard gets more, while someone who isn't gets less. Therefore there is still an advantage to working hard.

that depends on the overall "willingness", as you called it, of the whole state... and there are people who want but can't and people who can but do not want. There won't be even competition in the country, because everybody knows that his salaries are safed. If an enterprise is better or not that cares absolutly nobody in the state and not even in the enterprise itself. You can't motivate someone with something he already has.

And even if there was competetion it wouldn't be able to compete with non communistic states in my opinion.

Mr. Mylo

Edited by Mr. Mylo, 08 December 2008 - 15:19.

[CodeCat]

There's a huge difference between willingness and ability, though. Remember the basic creed of communism: 'From everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need'. If someone is able but not willing, that person gets nothing. If someone is willing but not able (severely disabled, in a wheelchair, can't move a limb) then that person is supported according to their need.

The point here is that we should support those who can't work as well, but not those who refuse to work. Likewise, we give more support to those who work harder according to their ability than others. If someone has only one arm but makes just as much of a certain product through manual labour as another worker, it ought to be clear that the one-armed person should get more support because that person is working harder to his/her ability than a normal two-armed person.

[Zero]

Dauth, on 8 Dec 2008, 15:42, said:

CodeCat, on 8 Dec 2008, 14:33, said:

How would they not be equal to everyone else? Their job is just a job like any other.

The point is the police force have powers of arrest, they can remove another's freedom and that breaks equality. It is a conceptual weakness of the communist ideal.

However, as long as a trial-by-jury system is kept in place and the people who control are the sentences are the PEOPLE, then the power would be evened out. Remember, the police have powers of arrest, but to arrest they must have a viable reason (for the most part) or you can put them out of a job. The judge wouldn't have too much power either as the judge just maintains the order in the room, the people decide on who wins.

CodeCat, on 8 Dec 2008, 15:57, said:

There isn't necessarily no competition in a communist society. At least not the way I would like to see it. The difference is mostly between willingness vs unwillingness. Someone who is willing to work hard gets more, while someone who isn't gets less. Therefore there is still an advantage to working hard.

However, I wouldn't argue willingess and hard work as the only reasons. In a Communism, there would still be status (in the form of fame and recognition) and since NO ONE shares the same level of ability, it will still encourage growth and advancement... although the rate of progression may slow. This I say because people will still fight to be remembered, something most people do now anyway (even the reason why fortunes are amassed). I argue that even when people are not willing to work, they will still work for the improvement of their reputations. Sorry, but kinda in a hurry....

[Dr. Strangelove]

'From everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need'

What if there is less ability than is necessary to accommodate the need?

[nip]

Communism doesn't work because 1.) it denies personal wealth and prosperity what is both a driving force for people to reach top efficiency. Communism tried to counter with centrally planned economies, premiums and decorations, they tried to breed elites and lured them with privileges. See China prospering since they commenced limited withdraw from so-called communist ideals.

Communism doesn't work because 2.) the political power is lacking antithesis. Communism leads to a power vacuum because capital has no authority and influence, the media is owned by 'the people' so any real opposition is absent, the political power is without corrective. 'People' determine 'representative of the people', when the representative of the people is assigned with total power and responsibility then real opposition will never spark. Peoples disaffection and social discontent are lacking outlet, with the unavoidable protests and uproars being rigorously surpressed. Any free parties will shake the foundation of a communist authority, something that a communist regime will never allow to happen. See China again, despite their capitalistic half-assed 'making-money-is-fun' policy they keep on cracking down on any political opposition with deadly dictatorial attitude.

Another handicap is the fact that any communist dictatorship needs a powerfull intelligence service to secure oneself. It requires a rigid spying on the people to keep them at bay and this leads to a broad atmosphere of distrust in society. The indispensable observation of the people intensifies their aversion and refusal of performance, the bulk of the population resigns. 20th century communism always been dictatorships, for obvious reasons communism will never make it in a democratic system. Winston S. Churchill once said democracy is the least evil mode of all possible regimes, I stick with him.

***

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:

Extortion is the use of force to acquire something. Someone who hoards a commodity is not forcing anybody else to do anything. If those people without that commodity can't live on their own means, they don't deserve to live.

Nation A got a certain commodity, nation B is in dire need of this certain commodity, nation B extorts nation A with war, destruction and other bullcrap, nation A refuses to except this, nation B invades nation A and commits genocide on nation A to access and control a certain commodity of nation A. By your logic nation B lost it's right to exist. Well done, Strangelove.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 11:27, said:

Even the current economic crisis reflects how much damage even limited regulation of the market by the government can do.

This statement makes me suffering. The decades of US/British driven deregulation of markets is one of the reasons that lead to the current situation. Societies and markets do need certain security and continuity to exist and to prosper. Obviously this can be reached only through regulation or nationalization. A totally deregulated market economy is just another dictatorship where the people are forced to serve the market. I admit a lot of mistakes were made by opening and deregulating national markets in Germany. Seeing both sides of the coin I'm willing to pay taxes to finance a regulated social market economy, in the long term I'm better off with.

[Dr. Strangelove]

nipthecat, on 9 Dec 2008, 12:02, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:

Extortion is the use of force to acquire something. Someone who hoards a commodity is not forcing anybody else to do anything. If those people without that commodity can't live on their own means, they don't deserve to live.

Nation A got a certain commodity, nation B is in dire need of this certain commodity, nation B extorts nation A with war, destruction and other bullcrap, nation A refuses to except this, nation B invades nation A and commits genocide on nation A to access and control a certain commodity of nation A. By your logic nation B lost it's right to exist. Well done, Strangelove.

1: We don't need oil, it's just a very nice thing to have. Needs are completely arbitrary.

2: A nation is a collective. Collectives abide by different rules than individuals. Namely, that they don't exist and are dangerously irrational generalizations.

nipthecat, on 9 Dec 2008, 12:02, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 11:27, said:

Even the current economic crisis reflects how much damage even limited regulation of the market by the government can do.

This statement makes me suffering. The decades of US/British driven deregulation of markets is one of the reasons that lead to the current situation. Societies and markets do need certain security and continuity to exist and to prosper. Obviously this can be reached only through regulation or nationalization. A totally deregulated market economy is just another dictatorship where the people are forced to serve the market. I admit a lot of mistakes were made by opening and deregulating national markets in Germany. Seeing both sides of the coin I'm willing to pay taxes to finance a regulated social market economy, in the long term I'm better off with.

3:I can tell that government regulation most certainly did cause the financial crisis, mostly by repealing the Gold Standard which allowed THe Feds to keep interest rates lower than is natural which lead to artificially easy credit and creating The Community Reinvestment Act which required banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them.

4: People ARE the market.

5: Of course you are fine with paying taxes to regulate business, because you aren't having your fundamental rights violated(at least not as much).

[CodeCat]

Dr. Strangelove, on 9 Dec 2008, 12:26, said:

2: A nation is a collective. Collectives abide by different rules than individuals. Namely, that they don't exist and are dangerously irrational generalizations.

That's the Nth time you've labelled something 'irrational' without giving a motivation. You do realise what this forum is for, right?

[Dauth]

Topic reopened, there will be no more issues in this thread or I will put it to bed for good. This is a direct instruction.